HENRY'S ERRORS IN STATEMENT.

93

Evidently Henry had in mind Jefferson's letter, about nine States ratifying and four rejecting the Constitution. But Randolph corrected Henry's use of Jefferson's letter and interpreted it as meaning, not that he wished Virginia to reject the Constitution, but on the contrary wished it adopted by nine States in order to prevent a schism in the Union; a calamity, which Pendleton declared would be an incurable evil, "because friends falling out never cordially reunite."2

Particularly did Henry warn his colleagues against the power over elections, given to Congress and devised to deprive the people of their proper influence in the government, by destroying the force and effect of their suffrage.3 But it was useless to try to answer Henry in any way, because of his manner of attack; no man could tell at what point he would make assault or what provision he would discuss, for at no time throughout the debate did he adhere to the rule of procedure adopted at the beginning, and his vehemence and disregard of parliamentary rules did much to neutralize the effect of his words. Moreover, he never considered himself answered. His facts were in doubt, as for example, his statement that New Hampshire and Rhode Island had rejected the Constitution. Lee, of Westmoreland, corrected him, at this point; New Hampshire had only postponed her decision till that of Massachusetts could be known, and Rhode Island had "so rebelled against justice, and so knocked down the bulwark of probity, rectitude and truth, nothing rational or just could be expected from her." She had not called the convention to debate the Constitution, much less had she formally refused it, and he demanded Henry's 1 Id., 200.

2 Id., 304.

3 Id., 175.

94

RATIFICATION CONDITIONAL.

evidence that New York and North Carolina had rejected it. Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey were quite as capable of judging of the general welfare as was Virginia and they had not been tricked into a rejection;1 none of the ratifying States had acted merely for local

reasons.

One of Henry's attacks was a withering criticism of Randolph's inconsistency in withholding his signature to the Constitution in Philadelphia and urging its adoption in Richmond. "What an alteration," said he, “a few months has brought about." The thrust went home and put Randolph on the defensive, much to the amusement of the Federalists. Even the strong rejoinder which Randolph made in self-defense did not explain away the inconsistency of his action. He declared that he still had objections to the Constitution, such as had appeared in his public letter, but he answered Henry, that he was now willing to take the Constitution, because he saw Virginia in such danger that even if the defects of the plan were greater, he would adopt it. There were strong suspicions among the Federalists that, at heart, Randolph had all along been a friend of the new plan, and Washington doubtless reflected their sentiments when he wrote to Lafayette, that if Randolph opposed the Constitution at all in the Richmond convention, he would do it feebly; for it was conjectured that he wished that he had been among the subscribing members."

Ratification in Virginia, it was now apparent, would depend, as Randolph said, on amendments, though he

1 Id., 183-184.

2 Id., 187, et seq.

3 Id., 191.

4 Washington to Lafayette, April 28, 1788; Sparks, IX, 356; see also letter to John Jay, June 8, Id., 373.

5 Washington to Madison, October 10, 1787; Id., 269.

JAMES MONROE'S OBJECTIONS.

95

conceived that the great question was the preservation of the Union.1 With him the chief reason for adoption by Virginia was the danger in which the State would stand if it rejected the plan and refused to enter the Union,2 of which thought a great portion of his argument for ratification was an elaboration. She would not be able to form an independent government, and having a long and exposed frontier, would be unable to protect herself. Though the argument was based on local and selfish grounds, it evidently had great weight with some of the doubtful delegates, most of whom were from Kentucky and Western Virginia, for all were convinced, except possibly Henry and a few of the extreme Anti-Federalists, that the Confederation was wholly inadequate to the needs of the State. Even in the "sweeping clause," as it was called by Henry, Randolph detected nothing formidable. It had been inserted, he said, only for greater caution, to prevent the possibility of encroaching upon the powers of Congress. Taking the various provisions of the article together, in which the powers of Congress were defined, the plain and obvious meaning was only to provide for the common defense and general welfare.

But Henry was not the only Anti-Federalist who at tacked the Constitution; James Monroe earnestly supported him. His mind turned with yearning to the confederacies of old, and to that ideal confederacy which he thought ought to be formed for America.5 Experience had shown wherein the defects of the existing government lay; and these should be remedied. The grave danger

1 Elliot, III, 194; June 10, 1788.

2 Id., 195.

. Id., 150, Constitution Article I, Clause 8, Section 18.

4 Id., 206.

Id., 207, et seq.

96

JAMES MONROE'S OBJECTIONS.

of adjusting territorial claims had passed away and the States had made their cessions to the general government; certainly this intimated what might be done. The isolated position of the country forbade fears of European interference. It was not to the advantage of the United States to make trade-compacts with any nation; for our ports should be open to all, but no exclusive privileges should be granted to any. The country, he believed, was in no danger of immediate disunion, and the defects of the Confederation might be remedied calmly and dispassionately.1

Among the many other objections to the new plan, he saw, in the extensive territory reaching to the Mississippi, a sufficient reason for rejecting the Constitution, for only a despotic monarchy could be expected to govern so vast an area.2 No object known to taxation could be reached in so vast a field; and a thousand circumstances made it clear to him that no law could be made which would operate uniformly throughout the United States.3 The vast powers given to the new government by which it would absorb the resources of the country at the expense of the States and collect into its service the most eminent men in the country, it was evident would establish a tyranny, for they contemplated objects with which a Federal government ought never to interfere. These powers should be carefully qualified. He saw imminent danger in the "sweeping clause," for Congress would be under no restraint from making any law, however oppressive in its operation, which it might think necessary to carry its powers into effect. Instead of a division of powers, in which the security of the people would

JOHN MARSHALL'S ANSWER.

97

lie, here was a coalition of powers and a division of sovereignty between national and State governments; between which a compact must be inevitable. He could see no real checks in the new plan.1 In the history of mankind he found no example of a concurrent exercise of power by two parties without a struggle between them, and, taking up the organization of the two Houses, that of the executive and the judiciary, he pronounced the proposed government dangerous and calculated to secure neither the interests nor the rights of the people.2

Mainly in reply to Henry, though at the same time to Monroe, John Marshall argued that the powers granted in the plan were necessary, and were adequately guarded.3 It was necessary to give the government power in time of peace to prepare for war; because foreign dangers would arise. Self-protection was the first duty of nations. It had not been the Confederation, but the enthusiasm of the people which carried them through the Revolution.1 The Anti-Federalists had concentrated their objections upon the power of Congress to levy taxes. Marshall answered them completely, showing that the representatives chosen from the different parts of the country would be fully capable of knowing upon what objects to impose taxes, and also to what extent to carry them. The immediate responsibility of the law-makers to the electors would be ample security for the public. It was folly then to talk of the abuse of legislative powers. The weakness of the Confederation was the true cause of all complaint respecting the navigation of the Mississippi. A strong government would not hesitate to control its own. And Marshall very correctly informed the House

5